what the BNP actually say on immigration ..
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Fuck off.
It takes no great mind (tho clearly one greater than yours) to realise what crap you are talking.
Note current levels of 'illegal' immigration, then times it by ten for if you and your racist friends implemented their preferred immigration policies.
Then consider how hard it would be to pass legislation on minimum wage levels. (clue: not very)
Finish by realising you are talking crap.
Oh, and fuck off, again.
It takes no great mind (tho clearly one greater than yours) to realise what crap you are talking.
Note current levels of 'illegal' immigration, then times it by ten for if you and your racist friends implemented their preferred immigration policies.
Then consider how hard it would be to pass legislation on minimum wage levels. (clue: not very)
Finish by realising you are talking crap.
Oh, and fuck off, again.
MC5 said:
They are controlled by the free market, that is what related to the price index means MC5. Controlled by the market.
Yes, except in the case of Eastern Europe where the government said, sure come work here, we have an open door policy, expecting a measly 13,000 to turn up? This is the same government that told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, do you believe they only thought 13,000 would come when 600,000 came?
MC5 said:
Well it is MC5.
Much as I disagree with Tonka on voting conservative, you can't deny he is right.
The only way to control wages is to control price, the only way to control price is to end the free market.
You think that saying, No to immigration is harder then ending the free market and adopting a different system of economics?
belboid said:
You really think that 600,000 people could enter this country illegally and find work?
Because it is only the fact that 600,000 immigrants are here and working legally that is driving down wages for the average worker.
If they were here illegally, then a lot of employers would not use them, it is the fact that it is legal that is the problem, because there is nothing stopping an employer from saying, sure lets hire 200 eastern europeans, cut our wage bill in half and profit from that.
IF 600,000 people could enter this country illegally, they would find it quite difficult to find work, and the work they did would be for people willing to break the law, not your average business.
A minimum wage you can set, but we have a minimum wage. The problem is you cannot set wages unless you set prices. You can't set a wage higher then the cost of the job, you can't pay someone 12.50 an hour to produce 11.50s worth of stuff, it just doesn't work economically. So the MARKET must set the wages, that is how our economy works.
Unless you somehow think redefining and recreating our entire economic model is harder then stopping legal immigration from Eastern Europe, you have to accept you are wrong.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
but they're not driving down wages for the 'average worker'.Fong said:
There are some jobs in some area's (though not all by any means) where the 'going rate' have indeed been lowered - but that's a very different thing.
Could 600,000 illegals find work? Quite probably - it's claimed (tho I would be very dubious about such a figure) that around half that number currently do so!
You also kind of ignore the fact that those 600,000 'illegal' immigrants have come here over the course of about 20 years. Some of have been here for decades some are still arriving, it is a trickle that has added up.
here we are talking about 600,000 in 2 years.
That is 300,000 a year.
Bear in mind that our ENTIRE population growth for 2003 was about 300,000. It has now doubled, because the rest of the immigration and population growth didn't stop just because these 600,000 came, they are in addition, to our normal population growth.
So for the past 5 years or so, we have had a population growth that looked like this...from memory, but its pretty close it IS about 4% a year.
2002 - 275,000
2003 - 315,000
2004 - 385,000
2005 - 685,000
2006 - 685,000
Now bearing in mind that our population has been growing by about 4% and that is of course compound growth, ie the higher the population, the more it grows each year, it is unlikely that 2005 and 2006 remained at 385,000, it is in fact far more likely that it grew, like it has in previous years and is probably looking at 700,000+ population growth for the last two years.
That is enormous. Double what it has been previously.
While some of us have been talking about controlling immigration to get a grip on housing, education and health care, this government has gone out of its way to double the population growth, and so shatter any hope of getting a grip on those services.
The worst part is, they probably did it on purpose, ohhh our services are collapsing, we need to put them into the hands of private business through PFIs.
Yet you people lap it all up, no we shouldn't control immigration that is racism at work, no it is just common sense.
here we are talking about 600,000 in 2 years.
That is 300,000 a year.
Bear in mind that our ENTIRE population growth for 2003 was about 300,000. It has now doubled, because the rest of the immigration and population growth didn't stop just because these 600,000 came, they are in addition, to our normal population growth.
So for the past 5 years or so, we have had a population growth that looked like this...from memory, but its pretty close it IS about 4% a year.
2002 - 275,000
2003 - 315,000
2004 - 385,000
2005 - 685,000
2006 - 685,000
Now bearing in mind that our population has been growing by about 4% and that is of course compound growth, ie the higher the population, the more it grows each year, it is unlikely that 2005 and 2006 remained at 385,000, it is in fact far more likely that it grew, like it has in previous years and is probably looking at 700,000+ population growth for the last two years.
That is enormous. Double what it has been previously.
While some of us have been talking about controlling immigration to get a grip on housing, education and health care, this government has gone out of its way to double the population growth, and so shatter any hope of getting a grip on those services.
The worst part is, they probably did it on purpose, ohhh our services are collapsing, we need to put them into the hands of private business through PFIs.
Yet you people lap it all up, no we shouldn't control immigration that is racism at work, no it is just common sense.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Wages have been driven down by boss cunts, rather than workers.
Half of the 600,000 who have come from Poland have returned, and I imagine many telling their compatriots that many of the high wage jobs promised are a myth and they get treated like shit.
Why do they come here? Because the UK was one of only three EU countries that would allow them to work. (The UK expected other countries to be more open, which is partially why they so vastly & ludicrously underestimated the numbers coming) When other countries do so (over the next two years) then the numbers coming here will dwindle fairly rapidly. To extrapolate from the last two years' figures into a long-term trend is ludicrous.
The crises in housing health & education well preceeded the current wave of immigration, and could all be solved relatively easilly - if there were the political will to do so.
Half of the 600,000 who have come from Poland have returned, and I imagine many telling their compatriots that many of the high wage jobs promised are a myth and they get treated like shit.
Why do they come here? Because the UK was one of only three EU countries that would allow them to work. (The UK expected other countries to be more open, which is partially why they so vastly & ludicrously underestimated the numbers coming) When other countries do so (over the next two years) then the numbers coming here will dwindle fairly rapidly. To extrapolate from the last two years' figures into a long-term trend is ludicrous.
The crises in housing health & education well preceeded the current wave of immigration, and could all be solved relatively easilly - if there were the political will to do so.
belboid said:
I never stated a long term trend, did I even put down a year that went beyond this very year we are in? Yet somehow you glean from that a long term trend? So recounting the figures for 2006, this year, indicates a long term trend to you?
I never said the crisis didn't preceed this, in fact, I think I made that clear when I said, some of us were talking about controlling immigration to get a grip on those services, before the government opened the doors, indicating quite clearly that the crisis already existed and can't possibly be helped by allowing vast numbers of people to enter the country.
Look it is quite simple.
You live in a house built for 5 people it only has 1 bathroom, and it only has 3 bedrooms and a small kitchen, it already has 10 living in it, its crowded but you managing, you don't invite 10 more people to come live with you, or your quality of life in that house deteriotes, as the bathroom is always full there is no room in the kitchen for anyones food and people are sleeping on the stairs cause there is no room left anywhere else.
It isn't rocket science, it isn't difficult to understand and it certainly isn't racist.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I haven't accused anyone of being racist, so stop trying to say I have.
Your first two paragraphs are pointless and your analogy laughable. The UK is not a house built for five people.
If one was to pay it any serious consideration tho, it would imply you think this country should have a population of around 12million!!
Your first two paragraphs are pointless and your analogy laughable. The UK is not a house built for five people.
If one was to pay it any serious consideration tho, it would imply you think this country should have a population of around 12million!!
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Fong said:
You and tt have still not explained how it is easier to control immigration compared to prices. Saying "it is" or "you can't deny" is not an explanation.
You can control wages by any manner of means including: a state wage freeze, an employer saying: 'sorry no pay rise next financial year', or sacking some of the work force to name but a few.
On prices: a freeze, rationing, subsidies, super-profits, profit margins, costs (fixed, marginal and variable), law of diminishing returns etc, etc, etc affect prices.
?Fong said:
Eh?
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Fong said:
The RPI is a measurement of a basket of goods and services. Who chooses this measurement and what goes in the basket Fong? It ain't the market "free", or otherwise.
Every time I look at a figure to do with recent immigration it's a different one. An agreement was signed in 1974 by European governments (after referendums in each of the countries) and a part of that agreement was to allow a movement of free labour in Europe.
You now wish the UK government to rescind on this agreement I take it and curb the right of workers to have free movement?
belboid said:
Of course the first two are pointless to you, they point out you were in error and your post made no sense.
As ot calling you a racist, I never said you did, I said there is no reason to consider Immigration a matter of racism, which IS prevalent in this thread.
The analogy is true. While this is not a house but a country, it still has provisions for X amount for education and X amount for health just like a house has X provision of bedrooms. That provision is stretched when you invite more people to stay at the house, the same applies when large numbers are invited to a country, you stretch the provision.
Like a house you can build to extend the provisions, another wing with more bedrooms, a conservatory to enlarge the kitchen...etc.
Who will build those?
Oh yes, that would be the PFI I warned you about earlier wouldn't it?
MC5 said:
Those are not government controls, they are again controlled by the free market.
If the market is ripe and the company says no pay raises then the company must face the issue of people leaving that company for another company willing to pay an increase. Same with sacking a few, if the market is ripe and there is work elsewhere those people will leave that company because the stress of doing too many peoples jobs will become to much and it is easier to find a job.
These are not government controls.
For a government to step in and to control the wages, it must control the prices.
What if it sets for instance a 500 pound a week pay price for a construction worker, but the market collapses and house prices fall dramatically?
All of a sudden paying 500 pound a week to a construction worker is no longer feasible, and no more houses are being built, there is massive unemployment ebcause no one wants to pay 500 pound a week.
So you have to control prices, houses are now X amount, because you can't have it go below that, or no one will build anymore.
Since when did this country have a freeze or rationing on pricess? The war? You suggesting we go back to the years around the second world war when we rationed food and gave out stamps.....and you think this easier then just controlling immigration?
Subsides are usually done to manipulate the free market in the way that Europe uses CAP to manipulate the food market and to keep farmers in this country and the rest of europe profitable.
The rest is the market at work.
Eh?
I don't really understand what you are confused about, it is quite simple, when you control the wages, you must control the prices, when you control the wages and the prices, you are no longer living in a free market economy.
Nothing to be confused about.
MC5 said:
Of course it is.
The index represents the average change in prices of the goods and services purchased by people across the UK.
Who sets the price of items, the market sets the price. It sets the price at the cost of manufacture and presenting the item ie getting it on a tesco shelf, plus an amount of profit and in some cases, plus whatever it thinks the market is willing to pay.
No I wish the UK government to act like every other European Country that signed that agreement bar 3, altho I thought it was 2, and actually have a trickle of people moving, as was allowed by the EU when they brought those countries in, so that we don't end up with 600,000 extra people in our country in the course of 2 years. In other words act with a bit of common sense and with the welfare of their workers in mind.
Almost every other country in Europe did this, but ours didn't.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
no errors in my posts. The points made were pointing out the poor logic in your statments. If you werent extrapolating current figures into the future what was the point of your remarks? Simply to repeat the obvious fact that there has been a larger number of immigrants in the last couple of years? Hardly necessary that really is it? And you simply avoid entirely the points that most of those immigrants have left, and that more will leave once the rest of the EU allows new member states' workers to work in any country.Fong said:
And then your absurd analogy. We have 'provisions X' for everything. Fixed provisions? hardly. We could easily increase the amounts going to each area. Indeed some of the people coming here are doing precisely that! And PFI isn't a necessary requirement of doing that either, thats a total red herring.
To go back to how immigratin has affected wage levels - average earnings across the whole economy rose 4% in the year to June 2006, 4.8% in manufacturing, and 5% if you include bonuses, whilst the RPI rose 3.3%. Immigration has hardly a devastating impact upon most peoples' income then. Even in construction wages are going up - if the workers are covered by the Construction Industry Joint Council - which "has negotiated a three-stage, 36-month agreement with an initial increase of 3.5%.
Further increases of 4.35% and 6% in June 2007 and 2008 will raise the total value to 14.5% over the three years - well above the employers' earlier offer of 11.1%."
http://www.lrd.org.uk/object.php3?pagid=17&objectid=25813&actual=construction industry pay&tval=1.5
belboid said:
Except they were not my statements. That was your error. You said I was talking about long term trends, but I never spoke about anything beyond the year we are in.
Your error, you see, now I understand why you dismissed those paragraphs because you just didn't like them.
To point out that immigration growth with those 600,000 extra was fucking huge, that it had doubled in the last 2 years, 2005 and 2006. I don't need to extrapolate to the future to point out that 600,000 extra people will have an impact.
I have seen no evidence of this that they have left. And living in East London with a VERY high proportion of Eastern Europeans, I think I might have, reading reports that 1 in 10 people in Southampton are now of Polish descent doesnt' strike me as if they have all left either.
I ignored it because you have presented no evidence to prove it.
Of course they are fixed to a degree.
We have X number of schools, we have X number of hospitals....therefore it is fixed, to increase the provision we MUST increase the number of schools or the hospitals or they won't be able to cope.
I think you miss the point of the PFI, it is not a red herring, it is a reason this government has acted as it has.
It loves PFIs that much is obvious and it needs a reason to put more into PFI and a great reason? Our system is collapsing, we can't cope, too many people we must build more, public purse is rubbish lets use PFI...don't mind that all my mates now work for consultants in PFIs, don't mind that when I leave office I will take a cushy job with a consultant and PFI companies, but we NEED PFI!
Will get back to you on the last part as I need to check the figures myself before commenting.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Fong said:
And the state wage freeze that you missed?
No, in the 60's and 70's under Wilson, Heath and then Callaghan there was a wage freeze. Then prices were never controlled by the state (as they were during the war) although people were told that they would be.
It is when you refer to something not in the original post:
Fong said:
Nothing in there about controls on prices and wages.
Despite the bluff, you still have not explained how it is easier to control immigration compared to prices?
To talk about those figures, lets put them into some context.
The British construction workforce is low-paid and casually employed, has unpredictable levels of skill, and works very long hours, compared to workers in German and Dutch housebuilding firms and their associated subcontractors.
It is no good to say, ohh but we had a 4% increase! When we have the lowest paid construction workers in Europe.
Note.
Those two countries didn't allow open borders when the old soviet bloc countries joined.
From the same site.
Second, social housing in Britain is the product of a relatively low-paid, casually employed workforce with an often unpredictable level of skill, necessitating high and costly levels of supervision. In contrast, the workforce in Germany and The Netherlands is relatively well-paid, directly employed with good social conditions, and is regulated by the social partners. This workforce is more capable of planning, undertaking and controlling their work with the minimum of supervision.
Now the site is generally talking about the building trade in general, and isn't specifically dealing with the economic aspect, but it is a site I quite easily found that showed that British Construction is poorly paid when compared to other European countries, which I had a feeling it was.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/H172.asp
The British construction workforce is low-paid and casually employed, has unpredictable levels of skill, and works very long hours, compared to workers in German and Dutch housebuilding firms and their associated subcontractors.
It is no good to say, ohh but we had a 4% increase! When we have the lowest paid construction workers in Europe.
Note.
Those two countries didn't allow open borders when the old soviet bloc countries joined.
From the same site.
Second, social housing in Britain is the product of a relatively low-paid, casually employed workforce with an often unpredictable level of skill, necessitating high and costly levels of supervision. In contrast, the workforce in Germany and The Netherlands is relatively well-paid, directly employed with good social conditions, and is regulated by the social partners. This workforce is more capable of planning, undertaking and controlling their work with the minimum of supervision.
Now the site is generally talking about the building trade in general, and isn't specifically dealing with the economic aspect, but it is a site I quite easily found that showed that British Construction is poorly paid when compared to other European countries, which I had a feeling it was.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/H172.asp
MC5 said:
Err when was that?
So what you are saying is, a government that tried to freeze prices, but couldn't and then was booted out of power, somehow means that we can freeze prices now? Do you remember 1972, do you remember rubbish in the streets? Dead bodies not being collected, massive strikes all around the country, they didn't call it the Winter of Discontent for nothing you know.
I have told you, because when you control the price and wages, you no longer have a free market economy, if you no longer have a free market economy, what do you suggest in its place?
Capitalism is built on a free market economy, to take that away is to take away capitalism and bring in communism.
That is easier then controlling immigration?
The fact that you don't understand the economic impact of your own arguments is what is confusing you, but it isn't something I really want to explain at length, I suggest you find a friend economist and have them explain to you why you can't control price and wage in a capitalist country, he might simply say...cause then it won't be a capitalist country, but he might actually explain all the maths to you too.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Fong said:
So it's organisations like the big supermarkets who often fix prices is what you're saying?.
But as Belboid implied there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of numbers you quote if the rest of the EU allows new member states' workers to work in any country. So, pressure on other countries to follow the UK's lead would be more appropriate rather than calling for more controls on the free movement of labour.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Fong said:
Here's the part of post you missed:
MC5 said:
The "winter of Discontent" involved workers discontented over low pay (remember they'd had enough of all those wage freezes). You may also recall that the "winter of discontent" took place in the winter of 1978/79 and not in 1972 as you state. Callaghan was voted out of power in a general election. There was rubbish in some streets, but I've yet to see evidence of dead bodies not being collected.
A state capitalist command economy could possibly arise.
Not necessarily you could see fascism, or dictatorship develop.
Is it?
I've studied economics, I'm not sure you have?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
oh dear oh dear. poor fongy, provides excellant evidence for his/her complete and utter lack of understanding as to the normal uses of logic and statistics.
just on the one point - how do you think a ten year old bit of research on construction has particular relevance to an argument about the impact of immigration in the last two years?
really really pisspoor stuff there. was that really the best you could find?
just on the one point - how do you think a ten year old bit of research on construction has particular relevance to an argument about the impact of immigration in the last two years?
really really pisspoor stuff there. was that really the best you could find?
MC5 said:
Well after you get that, then we can open doors again, but its a bit like saying lets give you poison now in the sure knowledge that tomorrow they might create a cure.
The supermarkets are a part of the 'free' market.
Like I said MC5, your example of a 'wage freeze' resulted in the winter of discontent, but apparently, thats better then controlling immigration, thats the easier of the two options, see our country in turmoil of strikes and rubbish piled high in the streets, rather then actually just control the number of people coming here to work.
Ok so it was gravediggers and not collectors, hardly matters does it, the coffins were still piled high and put in storage, it just goes to show that your wage freezing bullshit isn't going to work.
Now all of a sudden, the entire creation of a new economy is easier then controlling immigration? If you had studied economics I don't think you would have struggled so hard with the concept that by controlling wages and prices you are in fact destroying the free market, the very basis of our economy.
Like I said Bel, it was just the first site I found, I was doing other things and just wanted to point you in the right direction, by showing that a 4% increase is meaningless without context. If I could be arsed I would find something more recent, by my lack of posting over the last few hours wasn't without reason, reasons to which I have to now return, tho I will return at some point to dispute those figures with you further.
snadge
metal alchemist
belboid said:
employers are ignoring the NJC agreement and paying less, more and more sites are now not reconised as blue book sites.
It's all very well saying construction wages are going up but when employers blatently ignore the NJC agreement and pay less, what chance does the working man stand, a lot of fellow workers have refused work if the rate is not being paid, the employer then employs migrant workers with the excuse that there is a skills shortage.
We need leglisation to force employers to adhere to the NJC agreement.
Similar threads
